(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
In a political irony so profound it could be mistaken for satire, former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted by the Trump administration for what appears to be alleged lying about authorizing a leak to the Wall Street Journal concerning the Clinton Foundation—a leak many argue played a pivotal role in Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential victory.
Much of the coverage of Comey’s indictment misses this most crucial detail: this case is almost entirely unrelated to Russia. Yet much reporting frames the indictment as connected to “Crossfire Hurricane” or the Russia investigation, obscuring the real irony: Comey is being prosecuted by the Trump Justice Department for actions that arguably benefited the man now in power.
The story begins in July 2016, just a scant few months before the presidential election. Comey, then FBI director and a lifelong Republican, held a public press conference announcing that Hillary Clinton would not face criminal charges over her handling of classified emails.
It was an extraordinarily unusual move for the FBI Director to hold a public press conference so close to an election. And it outraged many of Clinton’s most visible supporters. While exonerating her legally, he simultaneously criticized her conduct as “extremely careless.”
Then there was the October 28 letter to Congress — a brief missive alerting lawmakers to newly discovered emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Arriving just 11 days before the election, the note reignited media coverage of Clinton’s email handling, further inflaming the political narrative.
While Comey had concluded that no charges were warranted, the timing of the disclosure shifted public attention in ways that analysts widely argue favored Trump. That same pattern of communication, intended as procedural transparency, now forms part of the context for the indictment — a legal move by the administration whose political rise it arguably helped.
The timing and framing were explosive: Democrats were furious, Trump’s campaign celebrated, and swing-state voters were left with a negative narrative of Clinton’s judgment. Historians and political analysts widely speculate that Comey’s announcement may have been decisive in tipping the election toward Trump.
In the shadow of that announcement, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe allegedly leaked details about the Clinton Foundation investigation in October of 2016, per The Wall Street Journal’s own reporting. Comey has consistently denied authorizing the leak; McCabe admitted he acted post-factum. The Department of Justice Inspector General investigated and sided with Comey, while earlier line prosecutors concluded there was insufficient evidence to pursue charges.
Yet under Trump’s second term, Lindsey Halligan — a politically aligned attorney with no prior prosecutorial experience — was elevated to acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan personally edited the indictment’s language and pushed the case forward after the previous U.S. Attorney refused to file charges.
Even more surreal, the indictment has been widely misreported as tied to the Russia investigation, creating a false narrative that obscures the actual events. This conflation makes the legal episode appear more politically neutral or law-enforcement driven, when in reality it is deeply ironic: Comey seems to be under prosecution for an action that historically aided the very administration now pursuing him.
For an accurate description of the bonkers details underlying what appear to be the charges, check out ABC News Chief Legal Analyst (and Mediaite founder) Dan Abrams who spells the whole thing out beautifully.
The result is a bizarre inversion of history. James Comey, whose October 2016 judgment arguably delivered the presidency to Trump, now faces criminal prosecution by the very administration he helped elevate. McCabe, once nearly indicted himself, becomes a witness; Halligan, elevated to a role she had no prior experience to hold, shepherds the case. The indictment is narrow, speculative, and highly unusual, yet it has been widely misunderstood or mischaracterized in media coverage.
Caveat: we may very well learn new details surrounding the actual case, but it is undeniable that Comey’s actions largely benefited the Trump campaign in 2016, regardless of the indictment.
This is not just a legal proceeding; it is a tableau of irony, timing, and authoritarian political theater. Comey’s story in 2025 underscores the strangeness of American politics: the intersection of history, power, and personal retribution, where acts that once harmed one political figure now form the basis of a legal case decades later.
James Comey, indicted by the administration he helped install, targeted for the very actions that elevated the man he would later oppose, now stands at the center of one of the most ironic and unconventional chapters in modern political history.
The post Lordy! Trump Nailing Comey Over Leaks That Actually Helped Him Defeat Hillary Is Peak Irony first appeared on Mediaite.
